Draft
Faculty Assembly Executive Committee Meeting
July 20, 2009
Attendees: Eddie Saiff, Jim Morley, Bob Becklen, Iraida Lopez, Larry D’Antonio, Stephen
Klein, Kay Fowler, Elaine Risch, Beth Barnett, Eric Karlin, Peter Mercer, Rob Mentore, Anita
Stellenwerf
Secretary: Kristin Kenneavy
September In-Service
1. Volunteers who could meet during the summer were requested to help organize the September
In-Service. Volunteers: Eddie Saiff, Elaine Risch, Larry D’Antonio, Jim Morley (?)
2. Potential topics for discussion include but are not limited to General Education, Online
Evaluations, and Plagiarism.
3. It was suggested that breaking into focus groups to discuss the above (and any other) issues
would be beneficial. An ARC and FAEC rep could be assigned to each group to answer
questions. Participants could be assigned randomly or by interest in a particular topic. Two
sessions could be organized so that faculty with interest in multiple topics would not be limited
to only one.
4. ARC Report: ARC has already talked at some length regarding Plagiarism and Graduate
Courses being counted in-load; will report to the Faculty Assembly regarding the status of these
issues.
5. Representatives were sent to the General Education conference in Minneapolis; will report to
the Faculty Assembly regarding recommendations regarding General Education that were
generated at the conference.
6. Report regarding the status of the draft document “Academic/Curricular Proposal Process”.
(see section on this below).
7. Any up-down votes generated during the in-service would need to be voted on in subsequent
Faculty Assembly meetings as by-laws require that there be time (seven days) for dissemination
of information prior to a vote being taken.
Faculty Assembly Website
Volunteers were requested to meet with Steve Shur for the purpose of recommending how the
Faculty Assembly Website might be made easier to locate and navigate. Meetings will
commence in September. Volunteers: Kay Fowler, Iraida Lopez
1
Draft
Constitution outlining Governance Structure Expiring End of 2009/2010 Academic Year
1. A committee needs to be created to review the current structure. Should be comprised of
faculty that are not already in the FAEC or ARC. Could be elected at-large or from within units.
Could have a FAEC member attend meetings to answer questions, but not vote.
2. The charge of the above group would be to recommend whether the current structure should
be abandoned entirely, kept entirely, or kept with modification.
3. If the committee recommends that the structure should be abandoned, the pre-existing
structure could be used until a second committee could be organized to prepare
recommendations on how to construct a new one.
4. Timeframe: The committee needs to be put together in September so that a recommendation
on how to proceed would be ready by the end of the Fall 2009 Semester.
Academic/Curricular Proposal Process
1. Stephen Klein drafted a document entitled “Academic/Curricular Proposal Process” in
response to the recent discussions surrounding perceived lack of communication between the
administration and faculty, as well as a lack of established procedure regarding how proposals
that fall both within and outside the domain of ARC should be vetted. This document was
emailed to FAEC members on July 16th, 2009 and outlines what such procedure might entail.
Stephen Klein indicated that he viewed it as an open document subject to input from interested
parties.
2. The procedures outlined in the document would not include matters already under the purview
of ARC, such as new course review, new program review, summer institute programs, and
academic conferences.
3. The document would cover proposals that originated with either the faculty or the
administration.
4. Major concerns include:
(a) The nature of the proposals that WILL be covered by the proposed procedures.
(b) Minimization of bureaucratic entanglement.
(c) The distinction between issues of shared governance and issues solely related to
administrative function.
(d) Decisions regarding WHO is actually responsible for compiling the proposal and supporting
data in instances where administrators and faculty are both interested.
2
Draft
(e) Creating a way of determining what sorts of issues merit this much vetting (not easy to tell
what issues faculty will find compelling).
(f) The need for potential incentives for those who wish to present a proposal, as the process
means more work for everyone.
(g) How to gather feedback from faculty and disseminate information about what stage in the
process a particular proposal is in (e.g open forums).
(h) The need to reduce procedural instability that results in uncertainty and anxiety among the
faculty and to be sure that similar types of proposals are treated similarly.
5. The FAEC will report to the Faculty Assembly at the September in-service regarding the
existence of this draft document and its general aims.
3